Feedback

Rollins V Costco Wholesale Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                           DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

SANDRA ROLLINS, 
     Plaintitt,                               No. 23ev01276 (EP) (AME) 
     v.                                     MEMORANDUM ORDER 
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 
     Defendant. 

PADIN, District Judge. 
     Pending before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Hon. André M. Espinosa, 
U.S.M.J., which recommends that Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s unopposed motion 
to enforce settlement, D.E. 43 (‘Motion to Enforce Settlement”), be granted.  D.E. 44 (“R&R”). 
     When  magistrate judges  address  dispositive  motions,  including  motions  to  enforce  a 
settlement,  they  submit a report and recommendation to the  district court.   See  28  U.S.C.  8 
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; L. Civ. R. 72.1(a)(2)..  Where no objection has been made to a 
report and recommendation within 14 days, the district court should, as a matter of good practice, 
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record before adopting the report and 
recommendation.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 
874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (noting a district court should give “some level of review” to a report and 
recommendation by a magistrate judge).  The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 
or in part, the findings or recommendations made in the report and recommendation.  28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1); L. Civ. R. 72.1(b)(3).  Only if the district court adopts a report and recommendation 
does it have the force of law.  See United Steelworkers of Am.  v. N.J. Zinc Co., 828 F.2d 1001, 
1005 (3d Cir. 1987). 

     Defendant argues that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement on November 
12, 2024, because there was a meeting of the minds between the parties to settle the matter and 
that any subsequent change of heart by Plaintiff did not invalidate the agreement.   D.E. 43-1. 
Therefore, Defendant contends, its Motion to Enforce Settlement should be granted.  Jd. 
     Judge Espinosa applied New Jersey law to determine whether Defendant had shown that 
there  was  no  genuine  issue  that the  parties  entered  into  a  valid  and  enforceable  settlement 
agreement, and found that Defendant had met “its burden in showing Plaintiff and Defendant 
agreed on essential terms and expressed affirmative intent to be bound by those terms, thereby 
entering into a valid and enforceable agreement to settle this action.”  R&R at 6.  Accordingly, 
Judge Espinosa recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.  Jd. 
    No  objections were filed in response to the R&R.  After reviewing the R&R and the 
relevant items on the docket in this case, the Court finds no clear error.  Therefore, the Court will 
ADOPT the R&R in its entirety.  Accordingly, 
     IT IS, on this 22"4 day of July, 2025; 
     ORDERED that the R&R, D.E. 44, is ADOPTED; and it is further 
     ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, D.E. 43, is GRANTED; and 
it is further 
     ORDERED that the parties shall take appropriate steps to effectuate the unredacted form 
of the Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the April 4, 2025, 
Declaration of Michael T. Moran, Esq., D.E. 43-2; and it is further 
     ORDERED that this case shall be DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 

                                               Souh,, Waddle 
                                               Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J.